Denisovans

[grannymh]

This thread, in its original post, discusses the material with which God made Man. Genesis teaches that Man is not just the material, the dust of the Earth, but also the spirit, the Breath of God. This occurred within the progenitors of the species and is Catholic dogma. Science can not cross the line into divine revelation and attempt to explain that which is outside the purview of science. Likewise, the Church can not define scientific issues.

Science describes the dust, and the Church describes the breath.

Could people have mated with other species after God’s intervention? It is possible, and it is possible that this too is indicated in Genesis.

Bestiality is sinful and not part of God’s plan.

 

[grannymh]

As long as someone has a physical body and an immortal soul, that person is “human”, right? The physical body could be that of an alien from Mars, but if the soul is immortal, it’s “human”, correct?

I cannot speak for other faith systems or other people’s beliefs.

When defining the human person, Catholicism starts with God’s plan. Thus, starting first with “the physical body could be that of an alien from Mars” (post 18) could possibly, not necessarily, be considered on the level of fun and games. That is perfectly o.k. Go for it.

On the other hand, a person may be interested in questions such as Who am I? What am I? How did I come to be? Where am I going? Where do I want to go?
These are serious questions. If one should choose Catholicism as a guide to these answers, then one has to start with God.

 

[Faith1960]

It is common sense that anatomies which are built to walk on two legs would have similar genes. It is common sense that animal anatomies have genes which fight off various infections. It is common sense that our material anatomy would be similar to other material anatomies. It should be obvious that some of our material genes could come from similar ancient material (non-human) beings. Recall that how God formed our material anatomy is not a crucial belief. God creating the soul directly, that is, the soul is not produced by genetics, is a crucial belief.

Once, it is realized that science is talking about only anatomies which rot away, it does not make any difference how many subhumans mate with each other.

In Catholic terminology, monogenism refers to the one source of the complete human nature which you and I have. Polygenism refers only to genetic sources for material anatomies. In regard to your complete human nature, polygenism skips God.

Monogenism insures the unity of humanity. Polygenism, as multiple sources, is part of the reasons for animal and plant diversity.

Monogenism insures that Christ hung bleeding on a cross for all people.

Monogenism vs. polygenism either recognizes the existence of God or denies the existence of God in our human life. In the Catholic faith, monogenism recognizes that God is not limited by the material world. This does not imply that somehow science is bad. Science must be respected for the good it has accomplished. What is implied is that science, itself, is limited to the material/physical creation. If one wants to understand one’s own human nature, one has to recognize that one’s nature is supernatural in that it unites both the material world and the spiritual world.

Just because science does not examine God under the proverbial microscope, that is no reason to eliminate God from the process of human creation. The fact that there are many people who do not believe in God has no power to eliminate God. God exists independently of people’s convictions.

The unanswered question is when did Adam, the first fully-complete human person, live. Because we do not have an exact date is no reason to eliminate the spiritual soul from human nature. One of the results of applying non-human animal principles (such as polygenism) to human beings is that the concept of a spiritual soul is thrown out.

Catholics believe in Divine Revelation protected by the Holy Spirit through the centuries. Our basic belief in the creative power of God is professed each Sunday when the community proclaims the Nicene Creed. This creed begins:" We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen." emphasis mine.

Practically speaking, it is not really necessary to know exactly when Adam lived. It is extremely necessary to know his complete human nature. Because of Catholic monogenism, you and I are assured that we have his marvelous nature which enables us to share in God’s own life through knowledge and love.

Admittedly, it is very difficult to hold on to our faith in Jesus as God and Savior when we are bombarded with research about material anatomies of many different kinds of archaic beings.

Monogenism assures us that our material anatomy is the one with the spiritual soul because we descended from the singular person of Adam.

Here’s a snippet from an article from CAF:

<<<<<<<<<<<< The Catholic Position

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special cration of his soul.Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions…take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter [but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immeiately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36) So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.>>>>>>>>

That pretty much says to me, that if we’ve evolved from apes, Neanderthals, Denisovans etc, (and I believe we most certainly have), at some point God created our souls. The way I understand this, that would mean there were many beings without souls (scientists call them humans) around at the time before and after Adam and Eve, but Adam and Eve were the first beings who were given God-created souls, which is the Catholic definition of being human.

 

[pnewton]

Bestiality is sinful and not part of God’s plan.

No one suggested it was or even broached the subject.

 

[grannymh]

No one suggested it was or even broached the subject.

From post 20: “Could people have mated with other species after God’s intervention? It is possible, and it is possible that this too is indicated in Genesis.” Emphasis mine.

Since humanity (descended from Adam and Eve) is one single species, what would be the other species?

 

[Ahimsa]

Since humanity (descended from Adam and Eve) is one single species…

Are you using “species” as a scientific term? If so, then we know that Homo sapiens has interbred with Homo neanderthalensis. And since all Homo species are “human”, such interbreeding would not count as “bestiality”.

 

[grannymh]

Are you using “species” as a scientific term? If so, then we know that Homo sapiens has interbred with Homo neanderthalensis. And since all Homo species are “human”, such interbreeding would not count as “bestiality”.

Species is a general scientific term. I use species because it is a generally understood common term.

You may know that all Homo species are “human” because you think the same way they do. This is because you apparently consider that all the Homo species and yourself share the same human nature.

Personally, I believe that the human nature inherited from Adam and Eve is peerless. Therefore, I have a different view than you do regarding bestiality.

 

[grannymh]

Species is a general scientific term. I use species because it is a generally understood common term.

You may know that all Homo species are “human” because you think the same way they do. This is because you apparently consider that all the Homo species and yourself share the same human nature.

Personally, I believe that the human nature inherited from Adam and Eve is peerless. Therefore, I have a different view than you do regarding bestiality.

This post deserves an explanation.

It is not intended to be directed to an individual “you” but rather to “you plural” referring to the popular speculation that the Homo fossils found are that of human beings which are the same as ourselves. This would be fine if a material anatomy is all that we are.

Perhaps it is time to look at what really is being implied when “human” is given to creatures before us. This means that our thinking process is the same as that of ancient Homo’s. Never mind the different scull sizes or artifacts of this and that.
It reminds me of – all grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass.

If I have offended anyone by my generalization of “you”, please accept my sincere apology. It was not intentional.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Ahimsa]

In the South, we say “ya’all”.

Perhaps it is time to look at what really is being implied when “human” is given to creatures before us. This means that our thinking process is the same as that of ancient Homo’s.

Not necessarily. We don’t know how Homo habilis created his/her mental concepts, if any; but H. habilis did have physical similarities to H. sapiens such that it is included in the Homo genus.

 

[grannymh]

In the South, we say “ya’all”.
Not necessarily. We don’t know how Homo habilis created his/her mental concepts, if any; but H. habilis did have physical similarities to H. sapiens such that it is included in the Homo genus.

What I am pointing out is not the physical similarities; but the mental similarities which had to be the same as ours; otherwise, these ancient beings would not be human. Since we are called human and they are called human, it naturally follows that I am thinking the same way they did.

Or is there something extra about us? Those media links put us in the same human class as ancient beings. Could the media possibly be wrong?

 

[pnewton]

From post 20: “Could people have mated with other species after God’s intervention? It is possible, and it is possible that this too is indicated in Genesis.” Emphasis mine.

Since humanity (descended from Adam and Eve) is one single species, what would be the other species?

The other species in this case was a mistake on my part. Sub-species might have been better. I was referring to those who were of some other humanoid sub-species. In this case, I was not commenting on the morality of it, only that this action might be what happened in the first part of Genesis in pre-deluvian humanity.

I never intended to suggest bestiality. In any case, if something like this happened, there simply will be no definitive moral ruling on this, since the Church allows speculation in the area of creation of Man. I would say that if I am correct though, then the comment of God to Noah would reflect that this was considered immoral.

 

[pnewton]

Personally, I believe that the human nature inherited from Adam and Eve is peerless. Therefore, I have a different view than you do regarding bestiality.

Since all this is speculation, let me throw one more out. If at some point in the late evolution of Man, God intervenes and imparts to our first parent an immortal soul, then it is likely that they strived to maintain some sense of purity as part of their understanding of God and their own unique status among other. If, after the fall occurs and centuries past, some natural disaster could have led to pressure on the fallen cluster of mankind to seek relations with other hominoids, with a finite soul. This is where, according to my ramblings, that the Nephim could have come in, followed by judgement upon Man in the form of a flood. Then, we could have a remnant of Man in an area devoid of other hominoids who rose to be the dominant, and then only, hominoid.

In such a scenario, I think debating the fate or the morality of the rest of hominoids is speculative. As to the idea of a near-man without an immortal soul, I think it best to leave such things to the Grace of a merciful and loving God.

 

[grannymh]

The other species in this case was a mistake on my part. Sub-species might have been better.

I am aware of some speculations regarding subhumans (term in use). These require coordinating a lot of assumptions including the area banned in this forum.

Personally, I prefer the reasoning that God, as almighty Creator, is not limited by the limitations of the material/physical world He created.